LEO CONEY AND ROBERT LASTER, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This case involves an appeal by two defendants convicted of burglary and grand larceny. They argued that the evidence seized from their car should have been suppressed because the initial stop was illegal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the stop was reasonable.
Yes, the court held that the initial stop was reasonable based on the information known to the officer at the time. Therefore, the evidence seized was admissible.
[1] A police officer may briefly stop and detain a suspicious individual to determine their identity or maintain the status quo while obtaining more information.
[2] A detention of individuals fitting a detailed BOLO description, including vehicle type, color, tag, and occupant characteristics, is reasonable.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The courts have long recognized the right of a police officer to briefly stop and detain a suspicious individual to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information.”
This quote establishes the legal principle the court relied upon regarding temporary detentions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers received a BOLO for a vehicle matching the defendants' description, occupied by two black males, in connection with recent burglaries. An off…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonable Suspicion For Investigatory Stop cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendants, Leo Coney and Robert Last-er, were convicted on several counts of burglary and grand larceny and appeal on the ground that the trial judge erred in denying their motion to suppress the evidence seized.
On November 24, 1975, following on investigation of several burglaries including a burglary 10 days earlier at the home of Officer Ferenzic in the same area, Officer Methvin received a BOLO to be on the lookout for a white 1968 vehicle, possibly a Chevrolet, with numerous rust spots bearing a temporary Florida tag and occupied by two black males, one of whom was wearing a hat and had a goatee. Several hours later Officer Methvin spotted a car and its occupants (the defendants) who fitted the above description (except as to the make of the car) and advised Officer Feren-zic over the radio of this fact. On Officer Ferenzic’s advice, Officer Methvin pulled the car over and requested some identification. Within minutes Officer Ferenzic was on the scene and recognized in the back of the car a digital clock radio stolen from his home. Thereupon, the defendants were placed under arrest. Subsequently, defendants filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from the automobile on the grounds that their initial detention was unjustified and illegal; therefore, the evidence seized as a result thereof was inadmissible. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge denied the motion and defendants appeal the order of denial. We affirm.
The courts have long recognized the right of a police officer to briefly stop and detain a suspicious individual to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information. See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972). In light of the information known to Officer Methvin at the time, we conclude that his detention of the defendants was reasonable. See Adams v. State, 295 So. 2d 114 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); Maruca v. State, 329 So. 2d 427 (Fla.3d DCA 1976) and cases cited therein.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1995)…ction.” Id. at 1099 (emphasis added). Receding from the harmless error analysis employed in Rivers, we went on to hold that denial of this right is per se reversible error. . For cases which have upheld a stop pursuant to a BOLO see Coney v. State, 341 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), State v. Chapel, 510 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), and State v. Wise, 603 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). . Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). . We also agree with the trial court that there a…
-
State v. Bell, 382 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…89 (1968). The police officers were authorized during the stop and detention of the defendant to ascertain if there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972); Coney v. State, 341 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The disclosure of a bench warrant authorized the police to arrest the defendant. Wigfall v. State, 323 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Based on a valid arrest, a search of his person was lawful. § 901.21, Fla.Stat. (1979). Contrab…
-
Partlow v. State, 134 So. 3d 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…e police had legitimate grounds and acted reasonably in detaining and investigating the occupants of the Chevy Malibu. The law supports the denial of the motion to suppress. See Hunter, 660 So. 2d at 249; Setzler, 667 So. 2d at 343; Coney v. State, 341 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). In Coney v. State, the officer received a BOLO describing a white 1968 vehicle, possibly a Chevrolet, having numerous rust spots, a temporary Florida license plate, and two black male occupants, one of whom wore a hat and had a g…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1972)
- Adams v. State, 295 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Maruca v. State, 329 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)